On 12/24/2010 02:03 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Dec 24, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/24/2010 11:09 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 22/12/2010 02:26, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/21/2010 7:17 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
My first priority is that doc and code match.
Close second is
On 22/12/2010 02:26, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/21/2010 7:17 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
My first priority is that doc and code match.
Close second is consistency (hence, ease of learning and use) between
various AssertXs.
Symmetrical diffs (element in first not in second, element in second not
On 12/24/2010 11:09 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 22/12/2010 02:26, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/21/2010 7:17 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
My first priority is that doc and code match.
Close second is consistency (hence, ease of learning and use) between
various AssertXs.
Symmetrical diffs (element in
On Dec 24, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/24/2010 11:09 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 22/12/2010 02:26, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/21/2010 7:17 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
My first priority is that doc and code match.
Close second is consistency (hence, ease of learning and use)
On 22 December 2010 01:37, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Furthermore, Java's jUnit puts expected first (and makes this part of
the culture/religion), so people coming from there will use that order
and be freaked out if you were to swap them. And last, the order of
diff arguments
On 21/12/2010 01:57, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Diffing is completely an implementation detail of how the failure
messages are generated. The important thing is that failure messages
make sense with respect to actual result and
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 21/12/2010 01:57, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
Diffing is completely an implementation detail of how the failure
messages are generated. The
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 21/12/2010 01:57, Nick Coghlan wrote:
My own +1 goes to keeping the actual/expected terminology (and
ordering) and adjusting the diffs accordingly (with a header noting
that the diff is old=expected,
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually agree with Guido that anything we do is going to be
suboptimal in some way. Encouraging the actual/expected ordering and
updating the diff output so expected=old strikes me as least bad,
but using the neutral
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
For a non-native English speaker, 'a' and 'b' don't evoke 'after' and
'before' but simply the first two letters of the latin alphabet, and
their ordering is therefore obvious with respect to function arguments.
It's not just non-native English speakers either. I too
On 19/12/2010 19:55, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Dec 19, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:23:49 -0800
Guido van Rossumgu...@python.org wrote:
I may be unique, but I fear there is no
Le lundi 20 décembre 2010 à 13:00 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
Ah man, we've *nearly* finished bikeshedding about the names of unittest
assert methods so its time to move onto the names and order of the
arguments. Really?
Apparently someone decided this bikeshedding was important enough
On 20/12/2010 13:47, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le lundi 20 décembre 2010 à 13:00 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
Ah man, we've *nearly* finished bikeshedding about the names of unittest
assert methods so its time to move onto the names and order of the
arguments. Really?
Apparently someone decided
Le lundi 20 décembre 2010 à 14:03 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
On 20/12/2010 13:47, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le lundi 20 décembre 2010 à 13:00 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
Ah man, we've *nearly* finished bikeshedding about the names of unittest
assert methods so its time to move onto the
On 12/18/2010 04:46 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/18/2010 3:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:00:04 +0100 (CET)
ezio.melottipython-check...@python.org wrote:
Author: ezio.melotti
Date: Sat Dec 18 21:00:04 2010
New Revision: 87389
Log:
#10573: use actual/expected
On 12/20/2010 6:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Diffing is completely an implementation detail of how the failure
messages are generated. The important thing is that failure messages
make sense with respect to actual result and expected result.
Which, again, they don't. Let's see:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
For a non-native English speaker, 'a' and 'b' don't evoke 'after' and
'before' but simply the first two letters of the latin alphabet, and
their ordering is therefore obvious with respect to
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Diffing is completely an implementation detail of how the failure
messages are generated. The important thing is that failure messages
make sense with respect to actual result and expected result.
Which, again, they
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:23:49 -0800
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I may be unique, but I fear there is no great answer. On the one hand
I almost always code it as e.g. assertEqual(actual, expected), which
matches my preference for e.g. if x == 5: rather than if 5 == x:.
On the other
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:23:49 -0800
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I may be unique, but I fear there is no great answer. On the one hand
I almost always code it as e.g. assertEqual(actual, expected), which
Le dimanche 19 décembre 2010 à 10:41 -0800, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:23:49 -0800
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I may be unique, but I fear there is no great answer. On the one hand
On Dec 19, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:23:49 -0800
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I may be unique, but I fear there is no great answer. On the one hand
I almost always
On 12/19/2010 1:41 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net wrote:
This could be nicely resolved by renaming the arguments a and b,
and having the diff display a, b. It's quite natural (both the diff
ordering and the arguments ordering),
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:54:55 -0500
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 12/19/2010 1:41 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net wrote:
This could be nicely resolved by renaming the arguments a and b,
and having the diff display a,
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:00:04 +0100 (CET)
ezio.melotti python-check...@python.org wrote:
Author: ezio.melotti
Date: Sat Dec 18 21:00:04 2010
New Revision: 87389
Log:
#10573: use actual/expected consistently in unittest methods.
IMHO, this should be reverted. The API currently doesn't treat
On 12/18/2010 3:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:00:04 +0100 (CET)
ezio.melottipython-check...@python.org wrote:
Author: ezio.melotti
Date: Sat Dec 18 21:00:04 2010
New Revision: 87389
Log:
#10573: use actual/expected consistently in unittest methods.
Change was requested
I may be unique, but I fear there is no great answer. On the one hand
I almost always code it as e.g. assertEqual(actual, expected), which
matches my preference for e.g. if x == 5: rather than if 5 == x:.
On the other hand in those assert* functions that show a nice diff of
two lists, when reading
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:23:49 -0800, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I may be unique, but I fear there is no great answer. On the one hand
I almost always code it as e.g. assertEqual(actual, expected), which
matches my preference for e.g. if x =3D=3D 5: rather than if 5 =3D=3D x:=
.
28 matches
Mail list logo
